LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 318

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

318 OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS

thereby, regardless of present or future circumstances, determine to sell
Concordia University, St. Paul. The Synod has given to you the re-
sponsibility for addressing the concems that have been raised in keeping
with the responsibilities of your office (see reference to Bylaws 4.73
and 4.75 in Resolution A, 1998 Convention Proceedings, p. 171).

In response to your second question, the referral of Ov. 5-52 com-
pletes the Synod's response to this overture. It will be necessary for
these concems to be raised again via report or overture if they are to be
addressed by a future convention.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Majority Vote for Synodical Elections (98-2134)

In letters received on October 14 and October 19, 1998, two
pastors of the Synod raised an issue regarding the majority vote re-
quirement for elections to synodical boards or commissions:

May a nominee whose name appears on the ballot for a synodical
board or commission be declared elected at a convention of the Synod if
such nominee receives less than a majority vote? In a situation when
the person with a majority of the votes is, for some reason, not declared
elected, may the Elections Committee or the convention disregard this
requirement of a majority vote and declare the minority candidate to be
elected?

The Commission answers that Bylaw 3.997 a (1998 Handbook,
p. 84) clearly states that “‘a majority of all votes cast shall be re-
quired for election to all elective offices and elective board posi-
tions.” Paragraph b also states, “In every election balloting shall
continue until every position has been filled by majority vote.”

In answer to the above questions, therefore, it is clear from these
Bylaws that no one may be declared elected at a convention of the
Synod unless that person has received a majority vote. Accord-
ingly, neither an elections committee nor the convention itself may
set aside this requirement and declare elected a candidate who has
not received a majority vote.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Questions regarding District Polity
and Pastoral Office Matters (98-2136)

A District President submitted four specific questions to the
Commission in an e-mail transmission on October [4, 1998. Fol-
lowing are the Commission’s replies to cach of the questions:

1. Is it necessary for a District to have a “Treasurer”? We already
have a business manager and an LCEF Area Vice President.
Would it be possible for our Board of Directors to appoint a Trea-
surer from within the Board?

Bylaw 4.51 b clearly states, “Each District shall have a Treasurer.
He shall be a layman and shall be elected or appointed as the bylaws of
the District may provide.” The answer to your question is therefore
“yes.” You will also want to take into consideration state law require-
ments for not-for-profit corporations. How you fill this position will be
determined by the Bylaws of your District.

2. How much time is typically needed by the Commission to review
a District’s Bylaw revisions and make recommendations? Our
District plans to have a rough draft by December with hopes for a
published draft by March of 1999. Is this reasonable?

The Commission appreciates compliance with Bylaw 4.07 b, which
Tequires that changes in Constitutions and Bylaws of Districts “be sub-
mitted to the Commission on Constitutional Matters of the Synod for
review and approval.” The Commission will therefore make every effort
to cooperate. The time frame you have proposed appears to be reason-
able.

3. In reference to Bylaw 5.61, is a District limited to four pastors’
conferences? Would it be possible for a District to add a fifth con-
ference due to demographic considerations?

Assuming that by “conferences” you refer to what Bylaw 5.61 calls
“major sections” of an official conference, the Bylaw clearly states that
such major sections are to number “not more than four.” In addition,
the geographical boundaries of these major sections “shall be estab-
lished by the District in convention.” The answer to your question must
therefore be “no.” The Bylaw allows for no exceptions due to special
considerations.

4. Can an LCMS congregation be served by a non-LCMS pastor

and continue in the LCMS? Does it make any difference if the

2001 Convention Workbook

congregation were also served by an LCMS pastor at the same
time?
Bylaw 2.45 b and c, provides a clear answer to your question:

b. Congregations which are members of the Synod, in confor-
mity with Article VI 3 of the Constitution of the Synod, shalt call
and be served only by ordained or commissioned ministers who
have been admitted to these respective ministries in accordance with
the rules and regulations set forth in this Handbook and have
thereby become members of the Synod.

c. Congregations which violate this requirement and persist in
such violation shall, after due admonition, forfeit their membership
in the Synod.

The Bylaw clearly states that an LCMS congregation cannot be
served by a non-LCMS church worker in any case.

Adopted Nov. 30, 1998

Amendments to LCMS Foundation Articles
and Bylaws (98-2138)

The Commission received from Synod’s legal counsel copies
of resolutions to amend the Articles and Bylaws ot The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod Foundatton, acttons approved by
Synod’s Board of Directors at its December 4—5, 1998, meeting.
The amendments are intended to conform the Articles and Bylaws
of the Foundation to Synod’s Bylaws as amended by the [998 con-
vention, to delete references to the Synod’s high school because
the school is in the process of becoming a recognized service orga-
nization, and to further clarify the Foundation’s Articles and By-
laws.

The Commission ratitied the letter sent by its Secretary granting
approval to the amendments to the Foundation’s Articles and By-
laws. The letter also included the following recommendation, re-
questing that it be addressed at the Foundation’s next appropriate
meeting:

The Commission also recommends, however, that the LCMS Foun-
dation make an additional amendment to its Articles of Incorporation
in due time, calling its attention to part SIXTH on page 4 of the materi-
als provided. This paragraph speaks of the transferal of all assets at such
time as the corporation ts liquidated and dissolved, naming The
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod as the receiving entity. It also pro-
vides a course of action in such case as the Synod is no longer in exis-
tence at that time and stipulates that any successor organization(s) be
exempt under the provisions of Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Rev-
enue Code. The Commission recommends that a second requirement be
added, one which stipulates that any successor organization(s) also ac-
cept without reservation the confession of The Lutheran Church—Mis-
souri Synod as presently described in Art. [l of the LCMS Constitution.

Adopted March |, 1999

Questions regarding a District
President’s Authority (98-2139)

The Commission received the following inquiry from a Dispute
Resolution Panel regarding a District President’s authority under
Bylaw 2.23 b (1998 Handbook, p. 27):

Whereas the synodical Handbook section 2.23 b, “Restricted Sta-
tus” states: “An individual member of the Synod on restricted status is
ineligible to 1. perform functions of ministry except in the position of
service, if any, held at the inception of restricted status and otherwise
only if approved by the District President,” does a District President
have the authority in the case of a pastor called by the District Board
for Missions as a mission developer to (a) order a brief leave of absence
in which the pastor is instructed to step back from ministry and not in-
volve himself during this time in any ministry and pastoral matters, and
(b) does the District President when later placing this pastor on re-
stricted status have the authority to declare, “In placing you on restricted
status, meaning that you are not to engage in further pastoral work or
ministry at _ Lutheran Church (which the pastor had been
serving) or elsewhere until the restricted status is removed.”

The Commission notes that two questions are being asked. The
first is whether a District President has the authority in the case of
a pastor called by the District Board for Missions as a mission de-
veloper to order the pastor to take a brief leave of absence and fur-